Final Sector Inquiry Report of the Competition Authority Regarding Fast-Moving Consumer Goods Retailing
“How simple it is when one knows nothing.”
Ernest Hemingway, For Whom the Bell Tolls

Introduction
Fast-moving consumer goods is undoubtedly one of the sectors that the Competition Authority has been working most intensively since the COVID 19 pandemic. Among the most important developments of this period was the Sector Inquiry initiated on Fast Moving Consumer Goods (“FMCG”) Retailing, which was a precursor to the investigations launched against retailers. As such, the Preliminary Report published on 05.02.2021 clearly outlined the main points of the investigations that would later continue in the field of FMCG. In many respects, the Preliminary Report, which contained highly influential recommendations, addressed competitive concerns in the FMCG market. Perhaps for this reason, many investigations were opened in the FMCG market following the Preliminary Report.
After almost two years following the publication of the Preliminary Report, the FMCG Final Report[1] (“Final Report”) was published on 30.03.2023. Although some of the findings in the Preliminary Report have been stepped back, the Final Report serves as a very clear warning text for the future.
Findings of the Final Report
It should first be noted that the Final Report is the second sector inquiry report written on this subject. The First Report, published in 2012, is actually important as it is the first study to reveal the dynamics of the sector and to analyze it in terms of competition law. However, when compared to the Final Report, the First Report draws a more optimistic framework in terms of competition concerns. The Preliminary Report, which was published before the Final Report, stood out with its rather radical recommendations. For example, the Preliminary Report points out that concentrations in the relevant market have increased, and suggests the re-determination of sector-specific notification thresholds for mergers and acquisitions.
The Final Report particularly emphasizes the growth in the FMCG sector since 2016. The report also sheds light on the changes in the FMCG sector as a result of digitalization. Secondly, the Final Report draws attention to the increasing concentration rates in the relevant market. Indeed, this rate, which was 26% in 2010, increased to 77% by 2021. It is also observed that the shares of the four companies with the highest market share have increased over time, while local and regional markets have lost market share. Interestingly, this concentration was not realized through acquisitions, but through new stores opened by the undertakings. In other words, the undertakings grew organically by opening new branches, which cannot be intervened by competition law. Therefore, the Competition Authority has also abandoned the radical suggestion in the Preliminary Report to lower sector-based turnover thresholds.
The Authority attributes other consequences to the increase in concentrations. Increasing concentration in the FMCG sector has started to negatively affect the undertakings supplying goods and services to retailers. The increase in concentration has also led to an increase in the purchasing power of retailers in the supply market. This buyer power is particularly more evident in the case of the production of private label products for the retailer. The Final Report highlights the importance of the growing retailer-specific product market, noting that the four largest FMCG retailers are also the ones selling private label products.
Therefore, the allegations that retailers engage in unfair commercial practices against suppliers due to their increased buying power is one of the main issues addressed in the Final Report. In the Final Report, it is stated that retailers charge suppliers under various names, extend due dates and unilaterally change the terms of agreements. This situation is characterized as a factor that makes it difficult for small and medium-sized suppliers to operate and adversely affects their competitiveness. Therefore, it is emphasized that preventing such unfair commercial practices is important to ensure competition in the relevant market. The Final Report even suggests that it would be appropriate to introduce a regulation on unfair commercial practices in line with the European Union (“EU”) practices.
The Final Report proposes amendments to the Law on the Regulation of Retail Trade in relation to unfair commercial practices, and suggests the following to be prohibited:
- Due dates exceeding 30 days for spoilable agricultural and food products,
- Due dates exceeding 60 days for other agricultural and food products,
- Short notice cancellations of spoilable foods,
- Unilateral agreement revisions by the buyer,
- Non-transaction related payment requests,
- Transfer of the risk of lost and spoiled goods to the supplier,
- Failure to provide written consent to the supply agreement by the buyer despite the supplier’s request,
- Misappropriation of trade secrets by the buyer,
- Commercial retaliation by the buyer,
- Transferring the cost of investigating consumer complaints to the supplier.
The Final Report also recommends that other arrangements be introduced. In this respect, it is requested that the following be prohibited or that a clear regulation be included in the agreement between the parties in order for retailers to be able to charge such fees:
- Return of unsold products,
- Payment of listing, shelf and inventory fees by the supplier,
- Payment by the supplier for the promotion,
- Payment by the supplier for marketing,
- Payment by the supplier for advertising,
- Charging the supplier for staff to be stationed in areas used by the buyer to sell the supplier’s products.
These proposals are not related to competition law rules in general, but to regulatory rules. Therefore, within the framework of competition advocacy, the Authority proposes to eliminate some of the problems in the relevant market through regulation, which cannot be prevented by competition law rules. In fact, the establishment of an independent body with the authority to conduct unannounced inspections and the right to take ex officio action is also among the recommendations in the Final Report. The need for this body to be equipped with highly effective powers such as requesting information and terminating infringement is also emphasized.
Yet, the most relevant regulatory proposal in the Final Report is the one on administrative fines, which is familiar from competition law. In order to ensure that administrative fines for unfair commercial practices are more effective, the Authority proposes that these fines should be for a period of time until the infringement is terminated and should be proportional, as to be calculated on the basis of the undertaking’s turnover. Thus, if undertakings with high turnover are penalized on a daily basis over a certain percentage of their turnover, it would result in very high and deterrent fines.
In order to prevent the avoidance of these proposed regulations, the Final Report also recommends that the principle of economic integrity, similar to that in competition law, should be adopted and that alternative dispute resolution methods such as mediation and arbitration should not be applied. The Final Report draws particular attention to the risk that such alternative dispute resolution methods may reduce the effectiveness of the relevant body.
The recommendation to ban the “rate difference invoice” practice, which attracted the most attention in the Preliminary Report, is also reiterated in the Final Report. The said practice is a very controversial one, which is characterized as an element of infringement, especially in the retail investigations conducted within the scope of Hub&Spoke allegations. In this respect, it is observed that the defenses raised in such investigations regarding the difference invoice practice are not accepted by the Authority.
Finally, the most surprising proposals of the Final Report are those related to the opening of new branches by retailers. The Authority states that it would not be appropriate to make the opening of a new branch of chain markets to be based on a population criterion, but that the opening of a second branch belonging to the same undertaking within a certain distance can be prevented. It is considered that the huge size of the FMCG retailing market may constitute a significant obstacle for the implementation of the aforementioned regulations, which are familiar from the fuel market.
Similarly, it is believed that the concerns and recommendations in the Final Report regarding private label products or products with specific weights also contain certain difficulties in terms of implementation. The Authority suggests that a buyer share threshold for vertical agreements, similar to the one in the EU, could be introduced in order to address these concerns arising from buyers’ purchasing power. The Final Report also includes a suggestion to unbundle the communication channels for private label products, which is referred to as the “Chinese Wall” practice, in order to prevent the exchange of information between the suppliers of these products and FMCG retailers. Instead of imposing a wholesale unbundling obligation, the Final Report notes that the Chinese Wall practice will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Conclusion
“How simple it is when one knows nothing,” Hemingway said. All recent developments in FMCG retailing prove this statement to be true. This is because the more the Competition Authority examines the sector, the more technical, detailed and complex reports emerge. Therefore, there are significant differences between the FMCG sector inquiry conducted in 2012 and the latest one.
The first observation that one may make about the Final Report is that the 269-page final version adopts a more liberal approach on some issues compared to the Preliminary Report. In a sense, many of the concerns in the Preliminary Report are left to ex post application, i.e. to be evaluated according to the dynamics of the case before the Competition Authority. When the recommendations of the Final Report are compared with the Preliminary Report and especially the investigations conducted in the field of FMCG retailing in the last four years are analyzed, it is possible to make some striking observations.
The most obvious of these is that the Competition Authority is seriously concerned about the concentration in the FMCG sector and increase in buyer power. Since this change occurs through opening new branches, i.e. through internal dynamics, the Competition Authority proposes to regulate the relevant market through regulations rather than competition law-based measures. The only competition law-based change proposal is the introduction of a threshold based on the buyer’s market share for vertical agreements. Yet, the Preliminary Report listed many competition law-based proposals. Most of these proposals are not included in the Final Report.
Nevertheless, it is also seen in the Final Report that the Authority has made very promising regulatory proposals. Some of these are very clear and radical ones, such as those regarding unfair commercial practices. However, some of them, as the distance restriction in the fuel sector, contain uncertainties regarding their implementation. Because, it is very difficult to make such measurements in a huge market such as FMCG retailing. Perhaps for this reason, the Authority recommends the establishment of an independent audit body and granting this body “super powers” such as on-site inspections, imposing fines and termination of infringement, as in competition law. As a matter of fact, only if a separate audit body is established and equipped with such powers, it will be possible to carry out the proposed actions in the FMCG market. Considering the scope and number of ongoing investigations, it is not difficult to predict that the debate on FMCG will continue for a long while.
- For detailed information, see https://www.rekabet.gov.tr/tr/Guncel/turkiye-hizli-tuketim-mallari-perakendec-28b0d14b05cfed118eb200505685da39 (Access Date: 02.05.2023).
All rights of this article are reserved. This article may not be used, reproduced, copied, published, distributed, or otherwise disseminated without quotation or Erdem & Erdem Law Firm's written consent. Any content created without citing the resource or Erdem & Erdem Law Firm’s written consent is regularly tracked, and legal action will be taken in case of violation.